Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

McGruber writes "Gigaom's Jeff John Roberts reports that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (MSLO) has filed a lawsuit against Lodsys, a shell company that gained infamy two years ago by launching a wave of legal threats against small app makers, demanding they pay for using basic internet technology like in-app purchases or feedback surveys. In the complaint filed this week in federal court in Wisconsin, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia asked a judge to declare that four magazine iPad apps are not infringing Lodsys' patents, and that the patents are invalid because the so-called inventions are not new. The complaint explained how Lodsys invited the company to 'take advantage of our program' by buying licenses at $5,000 apiece. It also calls the Wisconsin court's attention to Lodsys' involvement in more than 150 Texas lawsuits. In choosing to sue Lodsys and hopefully crush its patents, Martha Stewart is choosing a far more expensive option than simply paying Lodsys to go away."

You make a good point about the approval from the top, however calculating the 'greater loss' can be complex, especially if you're considering long term. Sort of like how many/most companies today will fight 'frivolous' lawsuits to the hilt - it's more expensive in the short term, against that litigator, yes, but in the long run if you're seen as a target you face so many more lawsuits it's actually cheaper to fight.

I have a friend who worked for a couple of summers at her greenhouse and farmstand. This is basically minimum wage work at a small sideline business that isn't even supposed to make money so much as slightly offset the cost of having a full time maintenance and landscaping staff on her very large personal home and adjoining estate in Maine.

My friend never directly reported to her, and only "met" her insofar as on a handful of occasions she saw fit to check on things or wanted to have a camera crew shoot som

I worked on her TV show for 4 seasons (which is why I'm posting as AC - you never know) - and I can assure you, not only is she aware, but once someone came to her with this, she became a driving force behind it. She may not understand the nitty-gritty details, but once she's been told that someone's fucking with her, there's no messing around. She's in it for the kill.

My siblings and I used to joke about Evil Aunt Martha (she's no particular relation, except that all Stewarts are either descended from a 12th-century Scottish king or peasants on the land of his descendents, so we might be distantly related to her husband.)

She's going to shiv Lodsys, and it'll look fabulous when she does, with legal papers that are black and white and red all over, in nice wintery colors.

I've always had respect for Martha, yes she may be a bit of an elitist bitch, but she taught a generation of people (women and men) to cook and garden and fix up their houses, and she did it in a way that was accessible. She also paid the price for her arrogance and moved on. If she is willing to fight back against the trolls and stand up to their demands, It's a good thing!

There is one big problem with trying to engage in a appeal to authority with some random pastry chef.

There is a high probability that Julia would call that French pastry chef an idiot. Surprisingly, she did not have a lot of tolerance for the kind of elitism in French cuisine that makes it expensive or unapproachable.

The word of some random french chef? Less valuable than toilet paper as toilet paper is at least soft.

I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice), while those who collapsed the economy got off scot free.

Hope her company drives the patent trolls into the ground. And then she decorates the grave with some potpourri warning signs to other trolls or some such.

She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice),

My understanding is that she went to jail for "lying" to Federal investigators, which is a felony. She said one thing, her stock broker said another. I suspect they wanted to teach her a lesson so they "believed" him and not her and off she went to the fed pen.

They couldn't prove insider trading simply because she wasn't an insider at that company. That is she had no business or employment r

This was an FBI interview. The only record allowed at an FBI interview are the FBI's notes. You are not allowed any other record. So the record can say whatever they want it to say after the fact.

The fed's started this high profile case against her, for whatever reason, and made a huge media splash. When it turned out that she hadn't actually done anything wrong, they were about to be left looking stupid. Can't have that, can we? So they nailed her on this completely

A lie in the moral sense of the term requires intent which is pretty difficult if not impossible to prove. So the entire idea is complete bullshit as the cops are free to lie or simply to disagree. Intent is not required. You can simply be imperfect (not even stupid or evil) and still run afoul of the law.

It's one of those "catch all laws" that really have no business being on the books in the first place. It's something that the authoriti

I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice), while those who collapsed the economy got off scot free.

Hey, but at least we're safer now that Martha has lost the privilege to vote and defend herself with arms.

Seriously, though, we can probably count on one hand the number of people who believe that the system worked for the benefit of society in that case. When department stores pro

I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice)

I have no sympathy for her at all. I met a woman in a bar just the other day who spent six months for obstruction of justice just like the rich bitch. Her crime? Criminal stupidity, a cop asked her name and she made one up. The dumbass had no warrants or anything, I guess she thought it was funny. If a cop asks a question, answer truthfull

Lodsys has finally encountered the perfect enemy - Queen bitch, completely self-absorbed, and very, very wealthy. Martha Stewart not only has the money, power, and influence to defend herself, but if she has taken personal offense to their tactics, she won't stop until she has completely and utterly destroyed Lodsys.

It may cost more. But maybe she's also considering the principal of the matter. She could be thinking "this might cost me some money, but those (whatever language older....so nice women use) SOBs shouldn't get away with this". Plus it might give other trolls the idea that going after patents/sueing for bullshit claims may not always end in their favor. Kudos to her!

Plus it might give other trolls the idea that going after patents/sueing for bullshit claims may not always end in their favor. Kudos to her!

In the bigger picture, it will only make a difference if the people responsible for Lodsys's antics are held personally responsible. Otherwise a troll isn't really going to care if their company goes under as long as they walk away with some money in the meantime.

In other words, patent trolls will now expend more effort on attacking the rest of us who are not phenomenally wealthy. Certainly Martha Stewart has every right to defend herself, and I'l probably cheer when she wins - but the outcome isn't really one we can be glad about.

Why wouldn't the company, if it saw itself getting close to losing, simply withdraw and sell it's "assets" (patents) to some other shell company and simply start the game all over again under a different entity?

Nope. The judge threw out the insider trading charges first thing in the morning.

She got jailed for Obstruction Of Justice(aka we caught you at a dishonesty while investigating you for a non-crime). Whenever you read charges like Obstruction, Wire/Mail Fraud, Consiparcy,... in a federal case then you read about the DoJ being a dick. They ain't got nothing, count on jury stupidity and plea bargains. Whatever DA gets results that way is not fit to run for a higher office since he took a huge dump on what ju

She was charged with insider trading, yes. But that got thrown out pretty soon.

Her broker got wind the CEO of another company was selling all of his shares. Neither Stewart nor her broker knew why. These were the facts as accepted by the court. And on that basis they concluded that insider trading laws didn't apply to her actions.

While you ARE entitled to an opinion you should take proper care to know at least a little bit. Otherwise you are an easy mark for populist opinion forming processes. I'm prett

Neither one of us were there. A jury convicted her, who are we to second guess? But I do agree that there are a lot of bullshit charges; my best friend's brother and half of his high school graduating class spent five years in prison on a bullshit charge.

His "crime"? Loaning money to a former classmate who happened to be a dope dealer. The charge was "conspiracy to distribute cocaine." Mike's brother wasn't a dope dealer and never touched the stuff, he

It seems to me that congress needs to revise the rules for obtaining and holding patents. I think that if the subject being patented can be recreated simply by having seen it in action or by a reading of the requirements, then it does not deserve a patent. So stuff like one-click or side to unlock would be excluded. There needs to be real hard work put forth on something before it should be considered an invention. We need to stop patenting mere ideas and obvious stuff. The hard work part should not be based on how hard the patent holder worked, but on how hard a challenger to the patent would have to work.
I do think a good system of rules would be hard to develop. The system should not be easily gamed. If it proves too difficult to write such a set of rules, then it seems to me that having a patent system is bad idea. Furthermore, most all inventions are going to be incremental improvements. Most fields have lots of people working in them. So if the increment of improvement is small and there are many people in the field, then clearly it won't be much work for others to achieve the same result, and hence the first to file concept seems grossly unfair. So now you have to decide what is a significant enough increment for something to warrant a patent. Perhaps if you have a mind like Tesla one could truly invent something stunning, but even then I have my doubts, for every Tesla there seems to a Marconi.

And all too many patent applications are crap for reasons of prior art or obviousness, but examiners at the USPTO don't have nearly the time to research all, or even most of them.
BUT, if you hear of a patent application (or patent) that is just BS due to prior art, you can just go to the Ask Patents website (run by StackExchange and free) and ask if it's a valid one based on prior art or obviousness. Anyone can also provide answers to the questions asked, and the answers will be crowd-ranked according to

People only look at their personal short-term gain, with no thought about the long-term consequences. It's paying the Danegeld [wikipedia.org], nothing less.

I read all the time about this-or-that injustice and oh! the outrage it sparks, but no one wants to do the right thing and fight because it's so hard!

When a cop violates your civil rights, do you take him to court? If no one does, then cops feel free to do whatever they want, and rights violations are everywhere.

When the BSA (business software alliance) demands to search your office without a warrant, when the RIAA offers to settle for less than the court costs, when the border patrol stops and searches your car, or when patent trolls demand license fees, it's all the same: bullies feel free to operate, it's the Danegeld in another form.

If people stood up for their rights and took the bullies to task, there would be a lot less bullying. It would be expensive for the first few people, but in the long run it would be better for everyone. Consider it an investment in your childrens' future: if you fight now, they won't have to fight later.

Next time you read about an injustice, think about what the victim could do to take the bullies to task. Then ask "why didn't they do that?"

Secondly, the money will at some point run out. Then you have to fight anyway.

Finally, it's not a simple matter of defeat or victory. There are victories that are worth it, and ones that aren't [wiktionary.org].

Convince them that even if they do win it'll be the latter and they'll go bother someone else. That doesn't work so well if the struggle is ideologically motivated, but that isn't the scenario here - it's about reso

Usually, because "doing the right thing" is not rewarded by society. You maybe potentially would win something, probably not enough to recoup costs, and for most people you couldn't even go the entire way through before finding your entire life in ruins thanks to the runaway costs of the legal system. I'd be happy doing the right thing, but not if it costs me everything in the process.

Note that there's a reason why trolls like Lodsys only sue small companies or even individuals. You never hear about them

Low? Huh?? $280 for a twenty year monopoly, Copyright costs $35 for a lifetime monopoly (it was $20 when I registered my first copyright on computer programs that are now obsolete). I don't see how the math works with your calculations.

I think it would be interesting if patents were treated a bit more like trademarks in that if you don't defend them you lose them. it may stop a few things from happening;1. Waiting till a product gets widely accepted and then suing. If you don't sue withing a certain number of years the patent is dead.2. Picking on the small guys who do not have the money to defend themselves. Require patent holder to sue all patent violators or the patent is dead.The main issue is would the patent holder know about the in

There's an old saying about knowing what's more expensive in the long run. It's "penny wise, pound foolish". Paying this patent troll to go away this time is cheaper than a lawsuit. How much cheaper is the lawsuit, though, than setting a precedent of being pushed around by patent trolls and paying them off?